Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Serge Brisson

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada where the subject is mentioned. The debate has some calls for deletion, others to merge or redirect. On merits, the reference to WP:POLITICIAN is relevant, and the usual criteria for inclusion (statewide or higher office, or significant press coverage) have not been met, election to a local council is insufficient for a Wikipedia biography. Consensus is against a separate article, and is supported by the notability guideline. Since the guideline further suggests redirecting politicians that fall short of our notability guidelines to a relevant article, such as the office sought, I will not call this an outright deletion. In this case, the party he led seems to be the most relevant target. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Serge Brisson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Brisson has been elected (to municipal office). In any case, election is only one criterion for *inclusion*; not being elected is not by itself a criterion for deletion. GD04 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To a municipal office in a municipality that's too small for sitting on its municipal council to count as a point of notability. Just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any past consensus to "keep all leaders of political parties" has long since been overridden by Wikipedia's core requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Notability is a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article, not a question of blanket "all X are notable" proclamations — if the sources aren't there, then an article does not get to stay. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no " requirement that biographies of living persons need to be sourced to the hilt or get canned; there is no "somebody might improve it someday" exemption for BLPs anymore" , There is a requirement that BLPs have a RS, which I interpret as a sufficiently RS to provide WP:V for at least some of the key claims. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Bearcat is only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians, so it's clearly not a universal requirement even by their standard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm "only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians" is because minor Canadian politicians are the only articles there happen to be at the moment that are both on AFD and inside my range of topical interests and familiarity — a person can only realistically be expected to participate in AFDs that they know about. If there were twenty poorly sourced articles about marginally notable chimney sweeps on AFD which were brought to my attention, then I'd apply the same criterion to poorly sourced articles about marginally notable chimney sweeps. But there aren't. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The core requirement to meet notability rules on Wikipedia is that the person has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The fact that the article cites one source which mentions Brisson's name once or twice, but isn't really about him in any meaningful way, may certainly be sufficient sourcing to make an article ineligible for speedy — but it is not sufficient sourcing on its own to mean that the article must necessarily be kept in a full AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim to Libertarian_Party_of_Ontario page. That seems to be were (any) notability originates. isfutile:P (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. I removed this from the article, which is substantially negative material that is unsourced. To write a descent article on this person requires facts that are negative and/or controversial about him and/or others. While waiting for somebody to source this, I suggest it be stubified, removing all be the two lead sentences. As said elsewhere, I don't agree with the "sourced to the hilt" standard. But the content of this bio is such that it really does require better sourcing than most articles. --Rob (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.